Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because it's a conspiracy by the left!!!

It's an interesting question though, and I think it's partially due to the fundamental platform of liberalism. Liberals tend to think more about society as a whole and ensuring their well-being. Being concerned with global warming is a logical extension of that.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.

Eh...I don't really buy that, if only for the negative implication on everyone else.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.

Eh...I don't really buy that, if only for the negative implication on everyone else.

I didn't say other people are neither of those things, only that liberals are more so. I'm more talking about personal disposition too, and not necessarily where you fall on the current political spectrum, though there's a lot of similarities. It's part of what definition of "liberal," as well as numerous studies on the matter. Take your paradigm conservative and your paradigm liberal, and they'll disagree on global warming and evolution.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Political Ideology is the key. An ad hoc world view based on personal preference instead of principles. Most people have a hard time separating their personal preferences (World View) with a political system. People on both sides of the standard left/right paradigm tend to support political action on what hey personally believe for themselves. For example, the traditional religious conservative believes in God and Creation, so they are appalled that someone would ever want to teach evolution so they attempt to use political action to keep it out of schools (or atleast keep Creation taught in schools). A left leaning environmentalist believes the Earth should not be defiled so they attempt to use political action to create protected area's from development regardless of what it would be used for.

Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?

Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.

Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?

Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a clean environment or national parks, but some people seem to place their preference above all others and use the State to force that end. That's the part that causes problems.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.

What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.

Actually I'm an environmentalist because I want my grandkids to have grandkids, not because of some tree-hugging anti-modernity shit. So yeah, I don't indiscriminately oppose all development, just the dirty stuff. Although honestly, what's wrong with having national parks?

Although in principle, I agree with you: personal aspirations have become very closely tied with ideology.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to have a clean environment or national parks, but some people seem to place their preference above all others and use the State to force that end. That's the part that causes problems.

If you mean the people who assume such a policy solely for its own sake (i.e. for the sake of the trees and animals alone), then I agree with you. The only reason I personally would endorse such measures is because while much of the opposition is so worried about implementing measures that might risk them a life of comfort or at least the high standard of living we currently enjoy in this nation, what we really should be worrying about is whether the human race will live to see past the year 2100.

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.

What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.

Look up liberal in the dictionary and a thesaurus. It's just part of what it means to be a "liberal," historically as well (liberal thought is highly intertwined with early scientific thought).

Open mindedness has nothing to do with what you actually believe, simply how you approach that belief, and other possibilities. Conservatives are generally more firm on their beliefs, have more conviction. Just look at how willing to compromise liberals always are, whereas most conservatives won't accept compromise no matter what.

But ya, it's not a clear break, and I'm not saying conservatives are science hating Luddites, or something like that. Our conservatives today are a hell of a lot more liberal than people in the 1600's, so it's a comparison.

I think part of it has to do with the nature of the response required. Human combustion of fossil fuels occurs on such a massive scale, it's obvious that the market won't take care of itself (not just in the scale or in the vested economic interests, but also because the market has no concern for 5, let alone 50, years from now) and grassroots campaigns won't work either. The only real approach to it is a series of restrictions upon the world's economy, as well as a government-led shift into renewable resources.

Logged

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

The Arctic climate is most definitely getting warmer. But the stratosphere is getting cooler. Because, you know, greenhouse gases trap heat in the troposphere.

The cooling is what is helping destroy the ozone, because it aids in the formation of polar stratospheric clouds. The formation of PSCs loose bromine and chlorine free radicals that destroy ozone.

Global warming also has some effects on atmospheric dynamics. Increased temperatures change the polar vortex and increase the zonal winds in the upper troposphere; both result in a cooling of the stratosphere.

A third effect is an increased transport of water vapour into the stratosphere due to warmer tropospheric temperatures; higher H20 concentrations enable free radicals to be activated at warmer temperatures than normal.

And ozone doesn't have anything to do with CO2 escaping the atmosphere. For all intents and purposes, no CO2 "escapes" from our atmosphere (towards space).

Logged

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

Here's a problem I always seem to encounter: why is it only liberals who are concerned with global warming? Even if I agree with alternative political ideologies, I can't jive with any of them because they all believe global warming is a myth and that we shouldn't do anything about it.

Because liberals are more open-minded, and generally more scientific.

What's your basis for that? It may be true, but there are a lot of variables that come to mind upon reading that. For example, what makes one more scientific? It seems awfully easy to equate open mindedness with whatever ideology you (speaking generally) prefer, because most people think of objectively good things as the foundation for their politics - progress, critical thinking, and so forth. It gets circular in a hurry.

Look up liberal in the dictionary and a thesaurus. It's just part of what it means to be a "liberal," historically as well (liberal thought is highly intertwined with early scientific thought).

Open mindedness has nothing to do with what you actually believe, simply how you approach that belief, and other possibilities. Conservatives are generally more firm on their beliefs, have more conviction. Just look at how willing to compromise liberals always are, whereas most conservatives won't accept compromise no matter what.

But ya, it's not a clear break, and I'm not saying conservatives are science hating Luddites, or something like that. Our conservatives today are a hell of a lot more liberal than people in the 1600's, so it's a comparison.

I dont think there's any evidence that liberals are more willing to compromise than conservatives. I'm not a conservative myself, but I dont think there's any empirical justification for this.

Personally, I find that political compromise isn't always a good thing. One should stick to principles, especially congress members. For example, one shouldn't vote for a bill simply because its more of a compromise relative to a previous version. If its wrong, stick to your beliefs. Thats why the people voted you into office.

Moreover, scientists should apply this also. Fact is, global warming isn't scientifically proven. As someone who deals firsthand with the financial models that destroyed the economy because they overreached, I know how easily these models fail when they try to describe something as chaotic and non-linear as a system such as the earth's climate. There are literally millions of variables that influence temperature, and no current mathematical generalizations have been able to accurately predict future temperatures.

Being skpetical about climate change is exteremly scientific. I liken people like Al Gore to religious fanatics who are as far from scientifiic as possible.

I don't understand people who say the atmosphere is too chaotic to understand. Sure, on the very short-term, it's pretty damn hard to. That's why 5-day weather forecasts don't have that much accuracy.

But on the larger scale? We sure as hell can anticipate what the atmosphere's going to do. We may not be able to model some of the more complex features, but useable approximations can be developed and reasonable models can be formed.

Logged

"In the beginning, the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad idea."

In my ENVS class learning about an interesting little idea called cellulosic ethanol. If we can achieve 30% efficiency with it, we would emit 91% less CO2 than with oil, and it would cost $2.50/gallon. Sounds like a big win to me.

Oh also, I just came across a nice, simple model that explains why human activities might have such a huge impact on atmospheric carbon, global warming and all that nonsense if we're just that: puny, insignificant humans:

I dont think there's any evidence that liberals are more willing to compromise than conservatives. I'm not a conservative myself, but I dont think there's any empirical justification for this.

Have you paid attention to politics? Democrats and liberals constantly compromise their bills, their plans, their agenda's, and the Republicans constantly refuse to compromise or even agree to the agreements they already came up with.

Also, to clarify what I mean, in American, "conservatives" and "liberals" differ by degree, not by kind. You're conservative, but historically and comparatively speaking, you are quite liberal.

Quote

Personally, I find that political compromise isn't always a good thing. One should stick to principles, especially congress members. For example, one shouldn't vote for a bill simply because its more of a compromise relative to a previous version. If its wrong, stick to your beliefs. Thats why the people voted you into office.

I think this is a good reason why the above is true. Politically, I think it's necessary to compromise. There's a difference between compromising on a political bill, in order to get something done, than compromising your personal beliefs. If you're actually fighting for your ideals (and not a corrupt piece of shit), then this will be reflected in the bill that results.

And yes, quality is still important, not sure what "more of a compromise" would entail in all situations, becuase you can meet in the middle in many many many different ways.

Quote

Moreover, scientists should apply this also. Fact is, global warming isn't scientifically proven. As someone who deals firsthand with the financial models that destroyed the economy because they overreached, I know how easily these models fail when they try to describe something as chaotic and non-linear as a system such as the earth's climate. There are literally millions of variables that influence temperature, and no current mathematical generalizations have been able to accurately predict future temperatures.

Being skpetical about climate change is exteremly scientific. I liken people like Al Gore to religious fanatics who are as far from scientifiic as possible.

The basics of global warming are undeniable, CO2 and greenhouse gases do raise the temperature of the planet, and they're also pollution and harmful in other ways.

I don't get why you're skeptical only in one direction. I'm fully skeptical about what exactly will happen to the planet, but taking that same view of human ignorance, isn't it quite stupid to keep pumping chemicals into an ecosystem we don't understand? Are we going to destroy the planet? No, that's merely anthropocentric bullshit. Ya, the planets temperature has fluctuated in the past; but are you aware of the consequences, and in some cases the cause? The first photosynthetic life forms nearly destroyed the planet for all known forms of life, and they're just fucking bacteria. Also, these temperature shifts have not always been kind to the then current life forms; you're a current life form.

This may sound stupid... but why don't scientists look at ways of genetically modifying plant life forms to consume a larger amount of CO2? In theory they'd create more oxygen as a byproduct. Scatter their seeds throughout forrest all over the planet. Wait a few hundred years and see the improvement.

I never thought of that, but two things I can see becoming an obstacle:

1) What's the economic payoff? It sucks but it's true: the world turns on money, and the only reason energy alternatives have gotten as far as they have is because of their utilitarian benefits as producers of energy for human use.

2) Considering how much forestry we cut down yearly around the globe, such plants might not be able to absorb CO2 faster than we're able to kill CO2 consumers.

What was the ecomic payoff of Nasa? There really hasn't been one yet, other than technologies being adapted for medical use. Hopefully one day when we need to protect ourselves from a comet or an asteroid it will pay off. I think the continuation of our species is pay off enough. But, I get what you are saying, and it is sad.

I'm not saying sometimes science develops things for its own sake, but at least in the last few decades, it seems as though the only thing that makes science "worth it" is if there's some practical use (i.e. you can make money with it). I mean think about this: do we have a colony on the Moon right now, and why not?

You don't believe in the possibility of runaway greenhouse effect, do you Scheavo?

No, I believe it's possible; what I don't think is clear is how that comes about, what kind of other feedbacks and other possibilities will actually happen. What I don't believe is that it's the for-sure result. But this seems to miss the point for me, because pollution in and of itself is bad, and so even if our emissions don't lead to a runaway effect, there are so many reasons why we should be cutting back emissions, that it's rather irrelevant in the end.

This may sound stupid... but why don't scientists look at ways of genetically modifying plant life forms to consume a larger amount of CO2? In theory they'd create more oxygen as a byproduct. Scatter their seeds throughout forrest all over the planet. Wait a few hundred years and see the improvement.

I'm not a botanist, but it seems like this would be problematic, or just as easily replicated by planting more plants we already have. Oxygen isn't the only byproduct of photosynthesis, and the plants would also need more water for the chemical process, which could cause other horrible problems.

I mean the only possibility I can think of in terms of a runaway greenhouse effects is the Arctic methane store completely melting, exposing the atmospheres to levels of greenhouse gases never previously experienced. That's my worry because we could make that happen.